The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board Limited v Abdul Kamal Nazar and Noufia Manzil

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 12474 of 2016 (H)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** ## **1. THE SECRETARY,** **KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYUDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** **2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, CHERTHALA P.O.,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** ## **3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,** **66 KV SUB STATION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **ABDUL KAMAL NAZAR,** **NOUFIA MANZIL, THURAVOOR P.O., KUTHIATHODU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 532.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.T.BALAN SRI.P.M.ABDUL SATHAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-08-2016 THE COURT ON 16-12-2016, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **WP(C).No. 12474 of 2016 (H)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-----------------------** - **P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH AT ERNAKULAM AS O.P.NO.1 OF 2015 DATED 5.1.2015** - **P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO EXT.P1 BEFORE THE LOK ADALATH** - **P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.11.2015 IN O.P.1 OF 2015 ON THE FILES OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH AT ERNAKULAM.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **msv/** ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.** =============== W.P. (C) No. 12474 of 2016 ================== Dated this, the 16[th] day of December, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The Kerala State Electricity Board and its Officers are the writ petitioners. They challenge an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath, Ernakulam in O.P.No.1 of 2015 by which compensation has been awarded in favour of the respondent herein for an amount of `1,01,250/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 01.01.2008. 2. Short facts giving rise to the above writ petition is disclosed as under: A claim petition is filed by the respondent herein before the Permanent Lok Adalath under Section 22C (1) read with Section 22A (b)(iii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LSA Act' for short) claiming an amount of `4 lakhs as compensation alleging damage being caused due to the drawal of electricity line together with interest and costs. 3. The 1[st] respondent contended that he is the owner of an extent of 6.07 ares of property through which a 33KV line was drawn W.P(C) No.12474/16 -:2:- by erecting a pole. According to him, drawal of the line through the front of his property has diminished its value. Since no compensation was given by the Board, he filed Ext.P1 complaint. 4. Counter statement has been filed by the Board officials disputing the liability. According to them, the 33KV line was drawn in December 2007 and therefore the claim is barred by law of limitation. Further it is contended that the line passes only 75 cm inside the corner of the north eastern side of the petitioner's property and no such damage as alleged has been caused and A type pole of 14 meter length on the north eastern corner of the property was erected as part of construction of the DC line. Hence the petitioner sought for dismissal of the complaint. 5. Since no settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the case was taken up for decision under Setion 22C (8) of the Act. Evidence was taken. Two issues were framed as to whether the claim was barred by limitation and whether the petitioner was entitled for compensation. In regard to limitation it was held that petitioner had submitted pre-litigation petition before the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Cherthala in 2013. It W.P(C) No.12474/16 -:3:- was held that delay in filing the petition before the Adalath will not stand in the way of the petitioner claiming compensation and therefore that issue was found against the petitioner. In regard to claim for compensation, it was found that there is diminution of land value by about 40% and that about 2½ cents of property is rendered useless. Therefore, fixing the diminution in land value at 50%, compensation is arrived at as `1,01,250/-. 6. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that Lok Adalath has no jursidiction to entertain the complaint. This is a claim for compensation which does not come within the jurisdicion vested in the Lok Adalath. Further, a barred claim cannot be adjudicated before a forum like the Permanent Lok Adalath and fixation of compensation as far as drawal of electric line is concerned is separately dealt with under the Telegraph Act, 1885 which cannot be adjudicated by the Lok Adalath. 7. On the other hand, leanred counsel for the respondent supported the stand taken by the Lok Adalath. 8. The first question to be considered is whether the Lok Adalath had jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint. W.P(C) No.12474/16 -:4:- 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent. There is no dispute regarding the power of the Lok Adalath to entertain a complaint which is filed before it. As per Section 22E(1), every award of the Permanent Lok Adalath issued under the Act either on merit or in the terms of settlement is final and binding on all the parties thereto and on persons claiming under them. The Apex Court in _**Bar Council of India v. Union of India**_ [2012 (3) KLT 557 (SC)] had upheld the validity of the above enactment and held that Chapter VI A has been enacted to provide for an institutional mechanism through the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalath for settlement of disputes concerning public utility service before the matter is brought to the court and in the event of failure to reach any settlement empowering the Permanent Lok Adalath to adjudicate such dispute if it does not relate to any offence. In the present complaint, the issue dealt by the Lok Adalath was a claim for compensation on the ground that drawal of electric line is causing damage to his property. To what extent can the Lok Adalath consider such a claim is the question to be considered. Section 22A reads as under:- W.P(C) No.12474/16 -:5:- _**“22A.Definitions** .-- In this Chapter and for the purposes of Ss.22 and 23, unless the context otherwise requires,-_ _(a) “Permanent Lok Adalat” means a Permanent Lok Adalat established under sub-section (1) of section 22B._ - _(b) “public utility service” means any-_ _(i) transport service for the carriage of passengers_ _or goods by air, road or water; or_ _(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or_ _(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or_ _(iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or_ _(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or_ _(vi) insurance service,_ _and includes any service which the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of this Chapter.”_ 10. As per Section 22B, Permanent Lok Adalats are established at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification. Section 22C (1) permits any party to a dispute to make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute. After an application is made, the W.P(C) No.12474/16 ## -:6:- Lok Adalat will endeavour to have a settlement of the proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties. Only in an instance where the parties fail to reach at an agreement as provided under Section 22C (7) that the dispute will be decided by the Lok Adalat. What exactly can be the dispute is the question. The dispute apparently has to be with reference to “supply of power or light by the Electricity Board”. In the case on hand, the claim made by the petitioner is for compensation for drawing an electric line through his property. Of course, an order can be passed against the petitioners if the complaint relates to supply of power or light. This provision apparently does not include a claim for compensation which can be adjudicated only by a civil court. In terms of the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885, if any person suffers any loss on account of a drawal of an electric line, there is remedy provided under the statute. Every matter coming under the purview of the Electricity Board cannot be adjudicated by the Permanent Lok Adalath. It should be in connection with providing a service, a public utility service to the complainant. Hence, I do not think that the Lok Adalath is justified in entertaining the W.P(C) No.12474/16 ## -:7:- complaint. 11. That apart, petitioners have a case that the claim is barred under the Limitation Act. The line was drawn as early as on 2007 and a claim for compensation is raised only in the year 2013. No specific reason has been stated by the Lok Adalath to entertain the complaint where as it proceeds on the basis that law of limitation will not apply. Even in a matter relating to filing a complaint before the Lok Adalath under the Legal Services Authorities Act, it has to be verified whether the complaint is filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the petitioner had approached the Legal Services Authority only in the year 2013. Under such circumstances, entertaining such complaint after a long period of five years is not justified. 12. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that this Court should not interfere with the orders passed by the Lok Adalath. Of course, the interference of this Court in such matters is very limited. But in an instance where the Lok Adalath acts beyond its jurisdiction, necessarily, this Court can entertain the writ petition. This is an instance where the Lok W.P(C) No.12474/16 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Adalath had acted beyond the jurisdiction vested in it under law and therefore I have no hesitation to hold that an interference is possible. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3 order is set aside. Sd/- ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE** Rp //True Copy// P.S to Judge